have had fun with that. but over there they're saying in his ear, get off don't let him say things that are true about fox news. nicely done, tom ricks. we'll see you tomorrow. stay right here. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." will fiscal cliff jumpers drive the country off a financial brink and into a new year recession? does it matter if the parties can't come together and use a more fitting metaphor defuse the austerity bomb that threatens to explode the economy and could decades of republican orthodoxy on rejecting new revenues finally be coming to an end? with the senate in session for 36 days to go before hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts hikes

and cuts take affect, white house press secretary repeated everything including entitlement programs would be part of the talkings. talks. meanwhile, many are turning their back on the pledge to grover norquist. >> times changed significantly and i care more about this country than i do about a 20-year-old pledge. >> i agree, a pledge signed 20 years ago is for that congress. >> i'm willing to generate revenue. it's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table we're build historic averages. >> it does appear that speaker boehner is open to talk about revenue entitlement reform. >> eliot: jay carney said the white house welcomed those comments and grover norquist

tried to make light of them. >> some of them have engaged in impure thoughts. they have not actually voted for a tax increase. >> eliot: norquist drawing the red line of any revenue even if new funds came from closing loopholes and limiting deductions. >> if you do that, you've just killed tax reform for a generation. why? how do you get the rates down if you don't have the deductions in credits. what obama is hoping to do is raise taxes spend the money, kill tax reform for individual. >> eliot: meanwhile, some democrats would rather see the country jump off the fiscal cliff than agree to cuts in social security or other social programs. telling nbc news the cliff was more like a gentle slope and there would be plenty of time next year to mitigate it's affects if the deal could not be made. >> this is not an one-day event. thechy does not go into the tank on january 1st or january 2nd 37

all of the tax changes would be for next year's taxes. not this year's taxes. you don't see that immediate impact. >> eliot: i'm joining joined by bernie sanders. welcome. >> thank you. >> eliot: do you think the hold has been broken. >> it does appear that is the case. after the election after poll after poll after poll some republicans are catching on to the idea that you can't get out of the deficit crisis just by cutting, cutting cutting and we all will have to raise taxes. >> eliot: of all the permutations that you've heard of the ideas being floated around, is there any deal that is likely to be agreed upon that you can vote for at this point ifin time. >> to be very honest, eliot i get a little bit nervous. i get nervous that instead of bringing back the old clinton

era tax rates for the wealthyiest people 39.6, there may an way to wiggle out of that, i get nervous when i hear the president and others continue to talk about quote/unquote entitlement reform, which i'm afraid is just another word for cuts in medicare and medicaid, and maybe even social security. you know, in the first two negotiations in 2010 and 2011, the congress cut $900 billion in programs for working people. the wealthy did not contribute one nickel toward deficit reduction. i think now is the time where the democrats and the president have got to stand firm and say excuse me, the middle class is hurting in this terrible recession. the number of people who are in poverty is at an all-time high. we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable and wealthy and large

corporations are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes. >> eliot: senator, not only do i agree with you i love to hear you state it with the clarity you always do. there is still unbelievable ambiguity with what the republicans are willing to do. there are basically three ideas floating around. one you can you would cap the amount any one person could make in deductions. close loopholes and three raise marginal rates. the third i gather is what you think we should do. >> i have not heard any republican is in favor of the latter. i think it's kind of mushy and revenue is a big word. you can have reaction near ways of raising revenue. to my point the president cannot and must not yield on the most important point that we go back to the tax rates of the clinton era. that's where the money is, and that's where we got to go. >> eliot: you are exactly right. as you say revenue is a big elastic word, and simply

agreeing to raise revenue does not mean it will be done that is progressive or in a way that is fair. did warren buffet's op-ed, did that have an impact within republican circles? >> well, warren buffet is not a great favorite of the republicans, but i hope they catch his point. what is he saying? he's saying i'm a multi billionaire. i've never heard of any investor rejecting a good way to make money. a good investment just because of taxes. but here's the other point eliot and it's at the heart and soul of what we're discussing. the middle class in this country is disappearing. do you really balance the budget by going after people who are already seeing a significant decline in their standard of living or do you ask the people on top as buffet reminds us, who are doing phenomenally well and their effective tax rate, take

mitt romney, is extremely low. he says this is a no-brainer. >> eliot: he said it's at 19.5% and that is simply, he said it's unfair and it has led to the maldirection of income and wasn't. he said do something about it. that's why he should be-- >> what is really grotesque, you may have seen on some of the network tv, people like lloyd blankfein the head of goldman sachs. you have wall treat millionaires who in many ways caused this recession and with all the suffering taking place they're going on television saying, you know we've got to cut social security medicare, and medicaid. that's totally obscene. >> eliot: you are correct senator. i want to switch gears. one of the reasons why it's been so hard, particularly in the senate to getting things

accomplished is the filibuster. we have this brief open window to get filibuster reform. where are we? will you have the magic 51 votes and will reid be able to use get the 51 votes to get the reform. >> you're quite right people are angry. they're hurting and congress is not responding. one of the reasons why congress is not responding is we have republicans playing an extraordinary role in terms of obstructionism. filibuster an filibuster. i think you have folks who are working really hard on this issue. senators americaly udal and others. if we're going to do the people's business we can't get bogged down in filibusters and we need real reform there. >> eliot: as always it is a great joy to have vermont's independent senator bernie sanders on the show.

thank you for joining us. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: for more on impure thoughts and what it could mean, i'm joined by ken vogel. ken, thanks for joining us. >> great to be with you eliot. >> eliot: how does grover norquist put down this rebellion in his own party? what muscles does he flex? what power does he have? >> what he has is money, and he has a lot for it. his organization spent $16 million more than they had ever spent on expressed at very casscy, the ads that explicitly say vote for or against someone in the case of the 2012 election though, he was exclusively saying vote against democrats and vote for republicans. so whether he is willing to use this money now, he has the revenue stream to go after republicans who support vote orish or just express support tax increases of any sort and it

puts him in a tough spot. while he has for years had this purist crusader on this issue he has increasingly become part of the republican establishment to the point his group got $4 million from crossroads gps that karl rove backs secret money non-profit that has become the shadow g.o.p. is groverer norquist willing to risk his place within this emerging shadow of g.o.p. and revenue stream to go after republicans, that's a good question. >> eliot: and the question whether or not all those issue advocacy ads with a lot of money behind them from effective. i think there were a fair number of senior republicans who said we have to raise revenues but questioning the orthodoxy of a rigid system may be the way to go. they would think no longer. isn't there this fundamental fork in the road for many of the senior republicans?

>> you would think so, but looking back to 2010 after the the 2010 election when republicans really thought they had the mandate in the same way frankly that democrats appear to have the mandate now on fiscal issues specifically where the tea party was successful. tea party candidates were successful in arguing that the obama administration has engaged in this reckless runaway spending with its democratic allies in congress and they were successful in taking back the house. then one year later with the debt ceiling negotiations they seem to have overplayed their hand and really engage in this brink manship to what we're seeing come to fruition again with the fiscal cliff and we have seen some interpretation that the 2012 vote was a repudiation of that. would they learn from that? and frankly will democrats overplay their hand thinking they have this mandate to force republicans into voting for tax

increases and not engage in any entitlement reform. it's shaping up to almost a mirror image of the debt ceiling-- >> eliot: every winner in the election wants to interpret the tendency to overplay one hand is enormous. i hate to overplay warren buffet as a voice but he is the most successful investor. when he said revenue should be 18.5, and that 3% is where the deficits are coming from, raise revenue, that's a potent argument from someone who isn't just an academic or someone who is a liberal by traditional standard. does that shake the confidence of grover norquist or the republican leaders, do you think? >> i think the sentiment and the facts that lead into that

conclusion. i don't think that he's the best merges to get through to republicans on this issue. while he's not a liberal by traditional standards he is considered an obama backer and he is an obama backer and contributor, i don't think he is the one to deliver that message. but i do think there are other prominent business leaders who are not with regarded who could be coming to this point. this is part of what we're seeing now with the behind-the-scenes talks between the white house and business leaders. as you're talking about warren buffet and the stuff he lloyd out i think back of the op-ed i did with david koch at the republican national convention in tampa where he said he might be open to raising rates in order to balance the budget. and he might be open to military spending cuts. he actually said he was open. he wanted there to be military spending cuts. when you have someone like that who is not only influential in

the republican, and the funding the koch brothers steer funding to the grover norquist group. when he comes to that conclusion as well as the senators and representatives who are saying they would consider tax increase, i think you could be seeing a change. however, there is this question of how much of this is just posturing for negotiations and posturing to appear reasonable and appear to have listened to what democrats think is the mandate, the voice of the voters. >> eliot: i remember that interview you did with the koch brothers, it was nays fascinating. i thought, aha there is light at the end of the tunnel, but here is grover norquist with what the republicans are for and the ambiguity may be seeing change. ken vogel for politico, thank you for coming on the show. >> thank you. >> eliot: is egyptian president

morsi for democracy. that's ahead. was not prepared. i just asked myself, "am i doing all that i can, am i doing the best that i can for her?" my whole family was so thrilled and so excited. it was just the start of a wonderful journey. i feel lucky every single day that i have my parents, i have my grandparents and that alea has grandparents and great-grandparents. sometimes they'll joke around and they'll say, " how's our baby, how's our baby?" and she's almost like this collective family baby. the fact that all of these generations can live together happily and get to know each other and learn from each other is really incredible. my mom was diagnosed with type-1 diabetes when she was 15. when she was first diagnosed they didn't even have any blood sugar monitor. people really didn't know what the future would hold for her but now, today, there are so many resources available to her. she has all these technological

devices to help her stay healthy. >> it's sunny out. >> it is sunny out. since alea was born, i almost feel more responsible for making the world a better place. we all have the ability to make it better for ourselves and for our children. >> brought to you by roche, the maker of the new accu-chek nano blood glucose meter. [ female announcer ] what would you call an ordinary breakfast pastry that's been wrapped in a flaky crust stuffed with a gooey center toasted up all golden brown then given a delicious design? a toaster strudel. pillsbury toaster strudel. so delicious...so fun. ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ]

go from zero to pizza in just 60 seconds with totino's pizza rolls and grab a bite of snack-defying, satisfying... because pizza...never...misses. it's on. let's roll.

>> talk about process reform can be boring, but sometimes process matters. which brings us to our number of the day. 51. this is the simple majority of votes that should be required to pass bills in the senate. it will also be for very brief window in january the number of votes needed to change senate rules about the filibuster so that 51 senators can, in fact, get something done. if the rule isn't changed before that window closes, senators in the minority will be able to

filibuster every bill as well as any effort to change the filibuster. meaning the democrats will need 60 votes for reform, not 51. will harry reid and the democratic majority of 55 senators seize the moment? messages out of the senate seem mixed. only two areas of reform are being talked about widely. first, ending filibusters that prevent debate from even starting. second actually requiring senators to go out on the floor and filibuster, not just threaten to. but that's not enough. something more fundamental is needed. while the filibuster should be eliminated all together at a minimum the number of votes needed to end one should be dropped to 55. and certain types of votes such as nominations by the president should be blocked from vulnerability to the filibuster. if republicans don't like it, they only have them to blame. they are the ones who abused the filibuster and brought governance to a grinding halt.

>> last wednesday egyptian president mohammed morsi was praised for his statesman-like and pragmatic role in brokering a cease-fire between israel and hamas. but on the domestic front it was viewed by many as a power grab as morsi faced accusations that he was trying to turn himself into the new mubarak. president morsi assumed total legislative power. in a fumble decree last week morsi unilaterally declared that the decisions he made would not be subject to appeal in any court or oversight by any authority, granting him nearly dictataldictate really power today after meeting with the judge the supreme judicial court morsi agreed to narrow the scope of his decree. joining me now is aaron david

miller former middle eastern adviser for democratic and republican administrations. thank you for joining us. >> a pleasure. >> eliot: so was this a power grab or was it smart to keep the courts from derailing the egyptian move to democracy. >> i think it was both. morsi clearly faced challenges. many of these judges are mubarak holdovers, determined to create common balance. any judiciary would in a democracy, to ascribe to the my way or the highway approach. morsi was testing to see what in fact, he could get away with. the up shot of course is that in this dysfunctional political system you have a kind of democratic anti-democratic ticktock which is going to at least for the moment compromise legitimate institutions of governance and create tremendous suspicion on the part of

seculars, the liberals and the military that morsi does in fact have a much longer and for authoritarian agenda. >> eliot: the timing, the moment that morsi is getting praised internationally. they're saying he's pragmatic and reasonable. then he responds by this decree. it expects to me that he was not expecting the domestic push back. he thought he had a window internationally, but then he had a push back where he least expected it, which is in the street. >> there is no question about that. the difference between a clever and wiseman. a clever man knows how to get himself out of a difficult situation. a wise man knows how not to put himself there in to begin with. i think that morsi having locked up $4.5 billion loan from the imf that he had an

opportunity to test and create some cover for this move, but clearly the reactions in the street, the reactions from his own minister of justice suggests that there is going to be push back. i think in the end the real problem here i don't think it's an authoritarian brotherhood as much as a dysfunction political system. we can't look at this in a frame-by-frame exercise. only 22 countries in the world have maintained their democratic character continuously. this democracy club is an elite club, and time is the ultimate arbitor not only of good wines and the like but if a good country can maintain it's democratic character. it's a long movie we're watching. >> eliot: and a tenuous moment where morsi is trying to bridge the gap between mubarak and institutions and as you said a few moments ago the judiciary is

a mubarak holdover and he's getting along better with the united states than his own support structure. >> he's borrowing a page from the mubarak book. can morsi play the role of totalitarian if he supports american and israeli issues on other matters the fight against terror, try to isolate iran, these are issues that mubarak cooperated well with the west, and we bargained in terms of this cooperation we gave mubarak a pass, more or less, actually more on the issue of human rights and gun control. morsi cannot play the same game as mubarak but on this narrow issue he saw an window here to make his move as justification and cover. >> eliot: what happens next in the cease-fire? am i right?

hamas has now empowered and the voices in israel that don't want peace have grown stronger because of this. is there any pass to any peace that you see in the near future? >> the problem is what you have essentially is a small kbabal of three players. the netanyahu government whose priorities are not the peace process but iran. and the greater chances he will have to confront his own ideology and coalition and hamas that has absolutely no stake and wants to undermine abbas. these are the new alignment which is taking us further and further away from the prospects from a meaningful two-state

solution. i think the united states, president obama, will have to make a decision. the chances of his intercession successfully are probably pretty long. the odds are pretty bad. but if he wants to not become the american president on whose watch the two state solution that the conflict expires he'll have to do something. >> eliot: can he do something to reinforce abbas' capacity to negotiate, take power away from hamas and take it to the palestinian authority the counter weight in that world and then say to netanyahu, now is the time to seize the moment. >> that would be nice, but there is two of everything. two constitutions, two presidents, two sets of security services, and reuniting that movement to one gun one negotiating position, that would centrally isolate and put pressure on the israelis in order to engage in a serious

peace process? chances that have happening are slim to none. >> eliot: i was feeling so happy and enthusiastic after thanksgiving. where is the good news. we'll have you back. >> eliot, nobody ever lost money betting against arab-israeli peace. trust me. i used to be a lot taller before i started working on the negotiations. >> cenk: you'll grow tall soon. thank you for your wise thoughts on this. >> pleasure. >> eliot: we're already hearing angry holiday threats. only on the viewfinder coming up. the new 2013 ram 1500. ♪ ♪ with the best-in-class fuel economy. engineered to move heaven and earth. ♪ ♪ guts. glory. ram.

>> eliot: coming up, florida's stand your ground law. how much longer will it stand. but first, thanksgiving thursday, black friday, and now viewfinder monday. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> is there anything more annoying? this is driving me nuts. listening to people talk about what they're thankful for.

>> i'm thankful for all three of. >> but i'm thankful for you. >> this thanksgiving what are you thankful for? >> my family. >> my job. >> my husband. >> my life. >> i'm thankful the election is over, and it was decisive, and that he won and the republican party is going to have to regroup. i think that was good for everybody. get it done, over with, move on. >> that will work. >> if you will. >> thank you mitt romney for being photographed this week pumping your own gas attending the twilight movie and then going to disneyland or a you would call that, going on a bender. >> we give thanks for the food on our plate, a happiness and health and amazing low prices at our chain stores where we were stampede on one another to save a few bucks on cheese that we will give to people that we

don't like that much. >> happy black friday to you. >> do not get in my way tomorrow, or i'll cut. >> you at a k-mart in sacramento one man threatened to stab people. >> happy black friday shovel shootingshopping.the economy needs your money. >> top ten fun facts about thanksgiving. the thanksgiving parade is a rerun. >> welcome to the 2012 annual thanksgiving parade. i'm excited. here comes the half sandwich and soup deal. >> i hate that place. >> i would rather have a whole sandwich or whole bowl of soup. >> obama: for the first time in our history the winners of the white house turkey party were chosen through a highly competitive online vote. once again nate silver

completely nailed it. the guy is amazing. >> eliot: nate does get it right. florida takes a hard look at its stand your ground law and changes exactly nothing. that's next on "viewpoint."

but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks or jumping into the market he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense from td ameritrade. you disgust me. prove it. enough is enough. d-con baits are specially formulated to kill in one feeding. d-con. get out. unwrap your paradise.

soft, sweet coconut covered in rich, creamy chocolate. almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise. (vo) always outspoken, now unleashed, joy behar. >> on my next show, i'll talk to the great salman rushdie, after which, i'm guessing he will go right back into hiding. >> eliot: when a tragedy occurs the hope we cling to is that a lesson can be learned to prevent that tragedy from ever occurring again. following the senseless shooting of trayvon martin, governor rick scott created a specific task force to study the implications of effectiveness of the florida controversial stand your ground law. after eight months the task force has released the report

that says it's pretty much fine as it is. they suggested only slight alterations to the law. joining us now is chris smith who formed his own task force to exam stand your ground, and david hemmingway conducting extensive research into the issue of gun violence. thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> eliot: you were not asked to participate in governor scott's commission. you did your own. what did your study find out about the flowers stand your ground law and how effective or ineffective and how dangerous it might have been. >> we found that it is very ineffective and dangers in that we have people from a cross section with defense lawyers prosecutors, law enforcement, a lot of people on our task force. when we talk to law enforcement one thing that stood out was the

law enforcement cannot even detain someone if you shoot someone dead in the streets of florida, and you claim stand your ground, law enforcement can't even detain you under the immunity provision so they can createlyaccurately do an investigation. my task force came out with amend so law enforcement can do their job and investigate the claim of stand your ground. >> eliot: was governor scott semiicsympathetic to that narrow amendment, or did you feel that there was a pre-ordained out come in saying that the law was good as it is. >> definitely. i gave them a copy of my task force which has a cross section of republicans and democrats across the aisle, and they had that in their possession during the whole road show around the

state. they never even discussed it. when they put out their report it was never discussed. i don't know how a rational person can think that law enforcement should be able to detain someone when you have a dead person, when a life it is taken, the least you can do is detain someone while you investigate. >> eliot: you've done an extensive study and review of the analystcal view and you've done your own study what is your sense if these stand your ground laws are effective and what are the risks that they make. >> this is really an empirical question. you may think that they may be good, they may be bad what the evidence shows is that these laws don't seem to have any good affect in terms of deterring crime, and the one thing that they do is tend to increase the number of homicide and and these

homicide tend to be murder. in texas a&m where they looked at crime data and an economist from george state who looked at the public health data from death certificates and data from emergency departments and hospitals, and they said the same thing. these laws are leading to people getting killed, not reducing crime in any way. >> eliot: and just so we understand that, is that because they said there is an immuneity that shrouds even the impermissible or proper use of the gun, and people are likely to take it out and use the gun because they believe unfortunately rightly that they cannot bees were cut be prosecuted as a consequence. >> the tampa bay times did a great study looking over 200 of these cases and what they found was that most of the shooters

had criminal records. often the most common kind of circumstance was the person who was shot hadn't initiated any sort of crime and was often unarmed, and still the perpetrator was not prosecuted, and was not convict good senator, look, i don't want to do what governor scott did which is to jump to conclusion but on the superficial take, i've seen the studies he's talking about. the perpetrators of crime are going through. those who have been shot may have done something wrong but shooting them in the street is not the right emdi. how did the commission, governor scott's commission react that these stand your ground laws are leading to increased violence and homicide. >> when the commission was formed, it was put together by people who wrote the bill in the first place and big nra

supporters. there was one person on there she had great ideas. she had a couple of her people on my commission who had great ideas. they never even discussed her ideas. when you stack the deck from the beginning you get your result. but going off what the professor said, the thing about the stand your ground law it creates a shoot-first mentality. it let's people know, and as you know the former as prosecutor, you can defend yourself in your home, but in florida even outside of your home if you feel any way threatened, it doesn't even have to be an immediate threat you can shoot first. it's giving floridians that mentality. yes, it has increased violence, and it gives people a false sense of being able to shoot someone and kill someone in the state. i just don't think in a civilized society that's how we should live. >> eliot: the balance that this law seems to strike is in favor of vigilantism which permits a person after the fact claim that

he or she was feeling threatened, not to take an act that would be rationally appropriate. that's what has troubled me as a prosecutor. do they want to amend them to contain the ability of the reach of this defense that is statutory iily enacted? >> oh, definitely. the three prosecutors that i had on my commission, they wanted to get rid of it. they wanted to amend it to at least have some prosecutorial discretion to be able to get at these cases. the case you mentioned about people--just a few miles from the state capital in tallahassee, one of your first stand your ground cases were two warring gangs. they walked on stand your ground because they felt in immanent danger.

there are plenty that you can point to, and these states attorneys are seeing this in their offices and they're asking us, begging us to amend this. >> eliot: quickly, the last question, is there an acted i can't sense that this bears further study so we can see what has been passed as a politically motivated effort by the nra or politically where it should not apply? >> certainly all the gun issues in the united states needs much further study. there just hadn't hasn't been much money available to do good studies that are needed. i would emphasize that we've done self defense gun use. when people hear that they think someone guy is attacking you and you have to do something. the average person when they report a self defense gun use was more often than not it's

just an escalating argument. people get mad at each other and someone draws the gun and said they were using the gun in self defense. that's not something that we want to promote. >> eliot: chris smith, thank you for joining us, and dr. hemmingway, also thank you for your time this evening. >> thank you. >> eliot: a new film highlights the harsh reality of climate change from the brutally cold places on earth.

>> eliot: he's the best investor in the last half century and he's telling us to tax the rich. warren buffet's ideas on tax reform are coming up in my view. and former naacp chairan julian bond discusses voter suppression at 10:00 p.m. eastern on "the war room." for new there is more "viewpoint" coming right up.

>> eliot: sometimes who says it is just as important as what they say. so it is with warren buffet's op-ed in today's "new york times" about taxes and the fiscal realities of our budget. here are the straightforward points that he makes central to the debate that is now gripping washington and has mesmerized wall street. recall this wisdom comes from the oracle of omaha the wiseman of finances, the points may sound familiar but the source, warren buffet, is what matters so much. point one raising the marginal tax rate to clinton era levels will not have any impact on investment decisions an indeed our growth during periods of much higher marginal rates than those apply now was robust benefiting both the wealthy and the middle class. recall, this was the same conclusion that the crs reached in a report republicans tried to suppress as i reported a few

weeks ago. point two cuts in tax rates have given, as he calls it a huge tailwind to the super rich. an average tax of 26.4% in 1992 but only 19.9% in 2009, an average income of $202 million. buffet said this is an outrage. his answer, an absolute minimum tax of 30% on income between a million dollars and $10 million 35 above that. no loopholes. no hidden games keep it simple. finally the most important point, point 4 going beyond the sometimes one-dimensional debate about where to set marginal rates. over the long haul government should set its goals at spending 21% of gdp and raising 18.5% in revenue leaving a gap of annual deficit of 2.5% of gdp. that is manageable with a growing economy. these numbers are close to our historical norms. the cries of the past few years is that revenue has fallen to

15.5% of gdp while spending crept up to 22.4%. and that is not manageable. notice the most significant deviation has been in the revenue decline not the spending increase. we should spend about 21% of the gdp but spending 22.4% we should get 18.5% in revenue but are getting only 15.5%. so listen to the wisest investor and businessman and also one of the wealthiest men in the world. raise marginal rates and stop worrying about those at the top of the income spectrum. it sounds very simple and reasonable especially when it comes from warren buffet. that's my view.

[ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: though we may not feel the earth warming on a chili november night like this, the consequences of climate change are real, and on dis display in communities along the east coast that continue to grapple with the wreckage wrought by super storm sandy damage likely made worse by rising sea levels as a result of melting arctic ice. "chasing ice" chronicles legendary nature photographer james bay-log's mission to document the shrinking ice we watch glaciers disappear in the arctic. jeff orlowski directed the award winning documentary "chasing ice," and he joins me now. thank you for joining me, jeff.

>> thank you eliot. >> eliot: what does this add to the inconvenient truth that gripped us years ago. >> when we started the project we weren't planning on the movie. we fell into it haphazardly. james wanted to watch the glaciers. we documented it for youtube videos and promotional things. every time we went to the field every time more crazy stuff happened with the cameras the cameras failing all the technical issues and then the adventure itself. we had helicopter crash landings, all these experiences happen to us. over the course of time we reallied we have all the material to make a really compelling film, and we didn't want it to be a film that was very science heavy. it was not trying to prove the issue or convince people through facts and fission. we wanted to show the visual

emotional story that people have not discussed before. >> eliot: i think that's a critical distinction. when there is graph and charts i don't think there is a legitimate scientist who has not come around to the notion that climate warm something real. but it gets lost because it's a gradual process. your time lapse photography is a stupendous way to communicate to audience the moving and drama in front of your ice of the glaciers. which of the visual images was most persuasive to you? >> there were so many different instances out in the field where we would go to a particular glacier. we would set the cameras up and go back six months or a year later and look at the memory card and recognize how much the landscape changed. there were days where we sent days climbing, the columbia glacier in alaska, and we went back and that was completely

gone. we spent days and days exploring and photographing it really hit home when we saw those changes in a short period of time. >> eliot: first getting to locations where you could capture these images, and then coming up with a mechanism that you could put a camera where it would not be jeopardized by the climate. there is tough terrain, did you ever say gee, what am i doing here. >> in retrospect there from half a dozen life-threatening instances. we had dog sled crashes, ice climbing accidents small accidents where people fell and had little false. helicopter emergency landing. i fell up to my next in ice water completely submerged in the middle of nowhere alaska. that was part of the job so this could be captured. we tried to convey what it took

to make this story happen. no one told james to take these cameras and put them out there. sometimes people ask why hadn't people done this before? it's so ridiculously difficult to oh to get these cameras in these locations. it's different from people debating on news, a versus b and all these scientific points that people bring up. it's easy to manipulate the data. it's impossible to manipulate the photograph. >> eliot: the difficulty has been we had a presidential campaign where we hoped there would be a discussion about climate change. what do you think should happen next? what would you like to see happen to confront this problem. >> if there is one single thing to really address the solution is to pay for fossil fuels properly. it goes into a long complicated conversation but there are a lot of externallalities when we buy gas at the pump.